For all those harbouring the delusion that the ATP is a players' union comes the news that the three tournament director representatives on the ATP board of six have vetoed prize money increases of 29% at Indian Wells so they won't have any competitive pressure on them to increase their prize money.

Isn't IW the tournament run by Larry Ellison, the guy who is always sitting beside the mega hot chick with the brunette hair and sunglasses? Why should the players get all the extra money? It should go to her for nails and dresses.

The BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells is prepared to reduce its prize money back to 2011 levels if the ATP Board of Directors does not approve its proposed increase for the 2013 tournament, TENNIS.com has learned. This year’s tournament begins on March 4.

In December, the ATP Tour Board of Directors deadlocked at 3-3 over a proposal by the BNP Paribas Open to increase its prize money by at least $1.6 million ($800,000 would also go to WTA players), where most of the increase would be distributed to winners of the first three rounds of play. Total prize money for the 2012 tournament was $5.5 million, meaning the proposed increase is roughly 29 percent, a substantial amount and 20 percent above the minimum increase required by the ATP.

Indian Wells Tournament CEO Raymond Moore told TENNIS.com that the ATP and WTA Players’ Councils, as well as the WTA Board of Directors, voted unanimously in favor of the increase, but it is being opposed by Mark Webster, Gavin Forbes, and Charles Smith, tournament directors on the ATP board. ATP CEO Brad Drewett abstained from the vote in December; the ATP later released a statement to TENNIS.com opposing the Indian Wells proposal.

Moore also said that ATP Players Council head Roger Federer, whom Moore calls the most powerful and influential figure in the sport, has written a letter to the Drewett objecting to the tournament representatives’ stance.

“Their vote is purely political and we are appalled,” Moore said. “They don’t want to see another tournament out-distancing them and that’s as clear as nose of my face.

“The driver for this is Mark Webster because the European tournaments don’t want to us progressing beyond what they can do. It’s totally anti-competitive. Everything he tells me is shallow and has no merit. There is division between players and tournament representatives on the board. The players keep asking for more and more and Webster said to me: ‘We are in the middle of prize money discussions about increases and we’re holding firm not to increase and then you do it. We have to keep the players in tow. It’s like land grab, give them your finger and they ask for the arm.’

“It’s an us and them, the tournament representatives against the players. They don’t want to go above what’s minimally mandated.”

In 2012, Indian Wells offered more prize money than any other North American Masters Series tournament: $700,000 more than Miami, $1.8 million more than Cincinnati, and roughly $2 million more than Canada. Of the three Masters Series tournaments in Europe -- Madrid, Rome and Paris/Bercy -- Madrid comes the closest in prize money to Indian Wells, but still offers about $1.6 million less.

The ATP Board is supposed to re-vote on the issue next week. If they don’t approve it, Moore says that Indian Wells will revert to its 2011 prize money levels, about $4.5 million overall.

“I’m not optimistic at all,” Moore said about the upcoming vote. “We’ve folded our tent. We have a proposal and they can either accept it or reject it. We are going to go with whatever the tour rules and be good citizen, which doesn’t mean we have to like it. If they vote against it we are going to the minimum requirement, and the players are going to lose big time. Instead of offering $1 million to our singles winners, it will be $760,000, and instead of $11,000 to first-round losers, we are going to give $8,000. I think the players are going to go ballistic and they should.”

The ATP is also objecting Indian Wells’ proposed 82-18 split between singles and doubles prize money. The ATP is holding firm at an 80-20 split. It was Moore himself who first helped create the formula back in the early 1970s when he was still a player, but he believes that times have changed, as fewer top singles players play doubles.

ATP CEO of Americas Mark Young has sent Moore a new proposal where the doubles winners split $275,000, the singles semifinalists receive $200,000, and singles quarterfinalists receive $100,000. The Indian Wells proposal offers increases to every round in doubles, with the doubles winners splitting $240,000, and the singles quarterfinalists receiving somewhere between $105,000 – $110,000.

“I said, ‘Mark, are you kidding me?’” said Moore, who believes most players would go along with his 82-18 formula. “Are you going to tell me that winners of the doubles should get more than semifinalists in singles? Frankly we don’t agree and that’s why we can abide by your prize money breakdown.”

When asked for an update on the issues earlier this week, the ATP would not provide TENNIS.com with one.

For all those harbouring the delusion that the ATP is a players' union comes the news that the three tournament director representatives on the ATP board of six have vetoed prize money increases of 29% at Indian Wells so they won't have any competitive pressure on them to increase their prize money.

See tennis.com for details.

Really drives home the need for a players association of some sort that will look after the best interests of the players, doesn't it? Here's hoping that the new president/CEO will be someone from the player's side, not management's. May not happen with Roger as the head of the Players Council.

Isn't IW the tournament run by Larry Ellison, the guy who is always sitting beside the mega hot chick with the brunette hair and sunglasses? Why should the players get all the extra money? It should go to her for nails and dresses.

I seem to recall hearing not too long ago that Larry had ceded all control over running the tournament to his long time business partner, Charlie Pasarell.

Really drives home the need for a players association of some sort that will look after the best interests of the players, doesn't it? Here's hoping that the new president/CEO will be someone from the player's side, not management's. May not happen with Roger as the head of the Players Council.

The story says that Roger objected to the ATP tournament reps' stance against raising prize money; in fact, he continues to fight for higher shares of the prize money for lower-ranked players.

He also fought off idiotic ideas (from another top player) of a two-year ranking system and reduced calendar, both of which would have hurt the lower-ranked players.

"he [Federer] continues to fight for higher shares of the prize money for lower-ranked players."

Kind of like I'm "fighting" in Afghanstan. I do support the troops.

This is what Federer does if he wants to change the share of prize money for lower-ranked players and the tournament declines. He informs them he declines to play. Federer probably has more clout than anyone in the game.

Federer doesn't appear to do anything that could potentially harm Brand Federer. Anything controversial could harm Brand Federer. I think this was essentially Rafa's beef (and more recently Jerzy J) when he said, in essence, if Fed is going to leave us hanging when we try to use public pressure (I believe in that case getting an overall increase in prize money out of the Majors) than he's [rafa] not doing it anymore.

PS, I love Federer. So spare me the attacks. I'm simply expressing an opinion that Fed is first and foremost a diplomat. If he wanted to force the prize money split he has the clout to probably make it happen. Especially if the other three were on the same page.

With half its executive board made up of tournament directors, one could hardly call the ATP a players' union. One doesn't find half of the UAW board made up of auto company executives. No, it seems less a union than an organization created to run the men's tour, which means a collaboration with tournament management.

Really drives home the need for a players association of some sort that will look after the best interests of the players, doesn't it? Here's hoping that the new president/CEO will be someone from the player's side, not management's. May not happen with Roger as the head of the Players Council.

The story says that Roger objected to the ATP tournament reps' stance against raising prize money; in fact, he continues to fight for higher shares of the prize money for lower-ranked players.

That's not what I was referring to. The story also mentions ATP President Brad Drewett abstained from the vote thus leaving it tied three all and therefore neither accepted nor rejected. It's not surprising since Drewett came from the management side of the ATP. Other players wanted a CEO who would be more sympathetic to the player's concerns, someone like Richard Krajicek, but Roger disagreed and pushed for Drewett. Well, now we're seeing the results of Roger exerting his influence and it wasn't a positive result for the players.

Abstaining initially is a good way to expose the self-interestedness of the parties while not imposing one's will unilaterally. Let them hang themselves in public and then come along and retrieve the situation.